21 February 2015 12:19 PM

A (not so) Brief History of Crimea

All right, I admit it, it’s not that brief. I didn’t have time to shorten it. But what follows is a condensed history of the argument about who should control Crimea, one which still rages and which (as usual) is not as simple as politicians like to claim it is.

I’ll begin with a question.

What do you reckon is the date of this Reuters News Agency dispatch? I’ve slightly doctored one or two things in it, but only to conceal the date.

‘Elected officials in the Crimea voted on Monday to hold a referendum to resolve heated debates on the future status of the region.

‘A Moscow news agency said the regional council voted to issue a declaration restoring the Crimea's "statehood" and also to hold a vote to determine the future of the attractive peninsula on the shores of the Black Sea.

‘Moscow television suggested the referendum could take place early next February. It said the region, part of the Ukraine but with a large population of ethnic Russians and other groups, was sharply divided between maintaining its present status or rejoining the Russian Federation.’

Well, it was 12th November 1990, nearly a quarter of a century ago. And it forms the opening page in a fascinating file compiled for me by a friend and colleague in Moscow.

What it shows is that the issue of Crimea’s relations with Ukraine ( and of the Donbass region around Donetsk) was a live and troublesome matter even before the break-up of the USSR at the end of 1991. And it also shows that at one stage the recently-established Ukrainian government in Kiev acted with considerable ruthlessness to prevent a referendum in Crimea on independence, a referendum which had been requested by 246,000 of the peninsula’s 2.5 million people. I’ll come to the details of this forgotten scandal later.

This is especially paradoxical, since Moscow did nothing to prevent Ukraine from declaring its own independence from the USSR, nor did it act to prevent the referendum which confirmed this. At the time, it seemed as if pretty much anyone could declare independence from Moscow. But nobody could declare independence from Ukraine. Or else.

One explanation of this was that Russia had, by and large, been liberated from Soviet rule by democrats, or would-be democrats. But in the non-Russian parts of the USSR, liberation tended to be accomplished by nationalists. Nationalists are out of fashion now and frowned on by the EU, especially. But at that time, before and since, in this part of the world, they served a useful purpose in dismantling the Russian empire, as long ago suggested by our old friend Herr Richard von Kuehlmann, Kaiser Wilhelm’s Foreign Secretary, in 1918. So you will find that Ukrainian Georgian and Polish nationalism are viewed as nice nationalisms, in the post-modern halls of Brussels, where the idea is generally despised.

Russia, belatedly waking up to the danger, has now turned nationalist itself, and that is very much not approved of. For Russian nationalism does not serve Kuehlmann’s prescient purpose, continued in modern times by his successors, in dismantling the old Russian empire and creating a new liberal empire of ‘limited sovereignty’ dominated by German interests. Thus, it is the *wrong* kind of nationalism. Whereas Ukrainian nationalism (if anything even more chauvinistic, virulent and intolerant than the Russian version) is the *right* kind. Which shows that it is its effect on the European map, not its innate characteristics which decide which nationalism is cool, and which despicable.

But back to the day before yesterday, by the sunny, rugged shores of Crimea.

The BBC Monitoring service , on 19th January 1991, picked up a report that the government of the Crimean Oblast (region) had scheduled a referendum on the legal status of Crimea, for the 20th of that month.

On 21st January, Dow Jones reported an overwhelming vote (93% of an 80% turnout) for Crimean autonomy - that is, separating the peninsula from the direct authority of Ukraine. This, of course was before Ukraine had declared its own independence. Russians in Crimea had long resented Krushchev’s 1954 transfer of their region to Ukraine from Russia.

But Ukrainian nationalists rightly realised this was a canny pre-emptive move, designed to prevent a new Ukrainian state seizing control of Crimea, and opening the way for a reunion with Russia.

The Ukrainian nationalist movement Rukh declared ( according to Reuters)

‘the referendum is an assault on the territorial integrity of the future Ukrainian state’.

In the following March, in a vote on Mikhail Gorbachev’s curious and murky ‘Union Treaty’ , a last attempt to hold the USSR together by consent instead of force, 87% of Crimean voters voted to stay in the Soviet Union and become independent.

This is outwardly puzzling, as the two seem contradictory. But there is an explanation. Presumably they believed a form of Crimean independence would be available within a loosened Union. And they feared (with reason) the effects of Ukrainian independence on their lives.

Then came the failed KGB putsch in August 1991, which finally discredited the USSR and the Soviet Communist Party in the eyes of almost everybody, and spelt the end of both.

But very soon afterwards, on August 26th 1991, a statement issued in the name of the then Russian president Boris Yeltsin warned that borders would have to be redrawn if Ukraine and other republics quit. It’s often said these days that , though the Soviet borders between Russia and Ukraine are quite unfitted for use as international frontiers, there was never any concern about this at the time of the split. The following newsagency despatch shows that this is not true.

‘Russia warned neighbouring Soviet republics on Monday that it would not let them secede from the Soviet Union taking large Russian-inhabited areas with them.

A statement issued in Russian President Boris Yeltsin's name said the Russian Federation reserved the right to review its borders with any adjacent republic which left the Union.

His spokesman, Pavel Voshchanov, who signed the statement, told reporters at the Russian parliament this referred mainly to northern Kazakhstan and to the Donbass region and the Crimea in the Ukraine.’

The ‘Donbass Region’ is of course the area around Donetsk and Lugansk, now in flames.

Instantly, Ukraine’s President Leonid Kravchuk reacted. Reuters reported the following day ‘Kravchuk said on Tuesday Soviet republics were concerned by Russia's warning that it would not allow those with large Russian populations to secede.

"(The statement) sent reverberations through the republics...Territorial claims are very dangerous and could end in problems for the people," Kravchuk told a news conference in the capital Kiev.’

Within a day, Boris Yeltsin had backed down (I suspect that when the archives are opened, if they ever are, it will turn out that he did so under pressure from the USA, but what do I know?)

Reuters reported :’PARIS, Aug 28, Reuter - Russian President Boris Yeltsin said on Wednesday Russia would respect the frontiers of republics that decided to sign the Union treaty.

"As for republics that stay in the (Soviet) Union, we will of course respect their frontiers, the Union treaty caters for frontiers to be respected," he said in an interview with French radio.

Yeltsin added that a joint Soviet-Russian delegation which flew to Kiev on Wednesday would tell Ukrainians that Russia would have no territorial claims on their republic if the Ukraine decided to stay in the Union.

The Ukraine's parliament declared independence from Moscow on Saturday subject to confirmation by a referendum in December.

The Soviet-Russian delegation's mission is to try to defuse Ukrainian alarm over Yeltsin's announcement on Monday that Russia reserved the right to contest borders with any republic that quit the Soviet Union.

His statement stirred historic suspicions of "Russian chauvinism" in the Ukraine, which contains two areas -- the Donbass and the Crimea -- populated mostly by Russians.

"Relations with Russia are becoming more and more complex as a result of Yeltsin's statement," an official in the Ukrainian administration earlier commented.

In the radio interview Yeltsin said questions of territory, frontiers, frontier security and diplomatic relations would all have to be settled by negotiation and "without shedding blood.

"When I speak of frontiers I am basing myself on laws and international treaties. If a state or republic leaves the union, then we will have to establish state-to-state relations by discussion around a table."

Soon afterwards, AP reported:

‘MOSCOW (AP) - The Soviet legislature, backing Mikhail Gorbachev's bid to stem the collapse of central authority, voted today to send a delegation to the Ukraine to discourage the breadbasket republic's secessionist drive.

The delegation also will discuss potential border disputes with the Russian republic, which has thrown a scare into some of its neighbors by saying it reserves the right to review its borders with them.

Gorbachev put his political future on the line yesterday, threatening to resign if the Soviet Union cannot somehow be preserved and indicating he would settle for a loose alliance of sovereign states.’

These efforts would be a complete failure. The break-up of what was left of the USSR was complete by the end of the year, and the old Stalin-Krushchev borders survived.

But shortly before the final collapse, Crimea’s local parliament tried to throw a spanner in the works. On November 23rd. AP reported :’ SIMFEROPOL, U.S.S.R. (AP) _ The Crimean parliament laid the groundwork for secession from the Ukraine when lawmakers approved a measure enabling the region to hold a referendum on its political future.

On Friday, lawmakers also sent a message to the Ukrainian parliament, asking it to continue to participate in Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev's plan to hold the Soviet Union together as a loose federation.

The Crimea is an autonomous republic of 2.5 million people in an area that juts from the southern Ukraine in the Black Sea.

Its parliament, dominated by former Communist Party members, voted 153-3, with two abstentions, to hold a referendum to decide whether the Crimea should stay under Ukrainian jurisdiction, reunite with Russia or become independent. No date was set.

On March 17, voters in the Crimea gave 87.3 percent approval to Gorbachev's federation plan.

Ethnic Russians comprise 67 percent of the Crimea's population. Many of them worry that the Ukraine might try to exert more control on the region after the Ukraine's presidential election and referendum on independence, set for Dec. 1.

Crimean lawmaker Yuri Ryzhkov said he expected a referendum on Crimean secession within a month of the presidential election.’

On the 27th, reuters reported ‘SIMFEROPOL, Soviet Union, Nov 27, Reuter - Angry and frightened Russians in the Crimea are vowing resistance to the idea of their fertile sunny peninsula becoming part of an independent Ukraine.

"I don't want to find myself living in a foreign country," shouted 67-year-old war veteran Georgy Malyshev, one of hundreds of Russians who demonstrated here last week outside the Crimean parliament.

Inside the parliament, still dominated by the old communist elite, deputies failed narrowly to approve an appeal to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev for the Crimea to be returned to Russia.

For nearly four decades, formal subordination to the Ukraine barely mattered as all vital decisions were taken in Moscow and official policy favoured Russian interests.

But now, with the Ukraine likely to opt for complete independence in a referendum on December 1, fears are growing that the Crimea could become a flashpoint of tension between Moscow and Kiev.

Anatoly Los, a Russian deputy to the Crimean parliament, said he expected the Crimea to vote "No" to Ukrainian independence in the referendum while the rest of the republic votes yes.’

On 1st December AFP (Agence France Presse) reported a low turnout in Donbass and Crimea (and other heavily Russian regions) in the Ukrainian independence referendum

‘The Kharkhov and Odessa regions reported turnout of 62 percent, while in the Crimea just under 59 percent of the voters went to the polls.

In Donetsk, turnout was put at over 67 percent, while the lowest participation in the election -- 51 percent -- was in Sebastopol, the officials said.’

In Western Ukraine turnout was 87.8%, in Kiev, 80%.

On the 6th January, the Wall Street Journal reported :

‘CRIMEA, Ukraine -- When empires start disintegrating, at what point do they stop? Ukraine has now firmly established itself as an independent state, but within Ukraine, there is the Crimea.

Home to 2.5 million people, with some 105 different nationalities living on its territory, Crimea, an autonomous republic located in the south of Ukraine, is like a miniature Soviet Union. It, too, is facing a shakeup.

While a surprising number of people here say they had never thought about the question of their own independence -- being an autonomous republic within a vast empire was enough -- they are now saying that with the Soviet machine having broken down, the Crimean people now want a shot at their sovereignty.

Only 52.6% of Crimeans voted in favor of the Ukrainian independence referendum that elsewhere passed overwhelmingly on Dec. 1. Many Crimeans would like to see their region affiliated with Russia…’

Later in the report, it noted:

‘Mr. Kravchuk made a fact-finding visit to the autonomous republic on Oct. 23-24 after reports of civil unrest here and to persuade local deputies to vote yes to an independent Ukraine….

‘In no uncertain terms, he told the legislators they were not ready for independence -- the Crimea had neither a constitution nor other important laws in place that would guarantee success as a separate nation. Mr. Kravchuk drew applause, however, when he promised that under an independent Ukraine, the Crimea would maintain its current autonomous status, including a guarantee that all languages and cultures on that territory would be respected.

‘In a later press conference, Mr. Kravchuk said, "Ukraine will not be cut up into pieces. No one is going to look at all the painful points . . . with a red pencil. We won't sit at a table to cut up the territory. That would be the beginning of the end."

‘He noted Ukraine was ready to work with the Crimean parliament and people to build one unified country -- Ukraine.

"Today we want to create a nation. The majority of the Crimean people understand the only way to live is with Ukraine," he stressed.’

Round about this point, a movement began to collect signatures demanding a referendum on Crimean independence, a legal entitlement under Ukrainian law.

In the background, tension was growing between Moscow and Kiev about the future of the Russian naval facilities in Sevastopol. The Russian Parliament, after the referendum crisis was over, even voted symbolically to rescind Krushchev’s transfer of Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. Plainly this had no practical effect at the time. As Boris Yeltsin had discovered when he briefly sought border revision, Russia was too weak to reincorporate what it regarded as Russian parts of Ukraine. But it staked an implied claim.

In February 1992, worried by the threat of an independence referendum, Kiev offered more autonomy to Crimea. By then, the independence campaigners, plainly with Russian backing, had already gathered 50,000 signatures.

On 21st February, BBC Monitoring gave this account of a Kiev press conference given by President Leonid Kravchuk

‘Is the president of Ukraine going to hamper the collection of signatures and the holding of the referendum on the new status of Crimea? The answer to this question has clearly defined the attitude to processes which are taking place in Crimea and the possible solution of the Crimean issue.

[Kravchuk] If people are collecting signatures in order to determine their political situation in their region, I do not see anything unusual in it. Whether or not it is necessary to do that at present is another thing, in my opinion, since the referendum has already taken place and this peninsula has expressed its attitude both during the referendum on 1st December and during the other referendum [all-union referendum] and in a great number of resolutions of the supreme soviet of the Crimean republic - well, that is another matter.

But the president will not be able to ban or cancel this referendum. (My emphasis, PH)

We can only pin our hopes on common sense, and the existing legal foundations and legal norms along with the Constitution of Ukraine and the paragraph concerning the Crimean republic which was made part of the constitution. This is the situation here. I somehow think that the supreme soviet of Crimea must show its attitude to this even if those signatures are collected - the supreme soviet must give its assessment of them and I would like it to be the supreme soviet of Crimea.’

Four days later, AP was reporting that the independence movement had collected enough signatures to trigger a vote: : ‘Crimea has ancient Greek ruins, Tatar castles, a stunning Black Sea coast, an important navy base and an angry majority of Russians who want independence from Ukraine.

‘Russians have gathered nearly 250,000 signatures, enough to force a referendum on Crimea's status. Such a vote would likely increase friction between Ukraine and Russia.

"Ukrainians are nationalists," said Alexander Tsitov, a Russian who works in a cooperative in Simferopol, the capital. "They want to introduce their language, and that is no good for us. They want us to be their colony.

"There is a danger the tension here could be transformed into armed conflict."’

Later President Kravchuk warned that bloodshed was possible if the Crimea went ahead with the referendum, placing established frontiers in question.

On the 5th May, things were speeding up, as AFP reported : ‘SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine, May 5 (AFP) - The parliament of Crimea Tuesday voted for secession from Ukraine, subject to confirmation by a referendum to be held soon.

The regional assembly of the Black Sea peninsula approved the independence bid by a large majority and offered to enter into immediate negotiations with Ukraine on a future bilateral agreement with the republic, local sources reported.’

Reuters elaborated: ‘SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine, May 5, Reuter - The Crimean peninsula passed a declaration of independence from Ukraine on Tuesday, a move likely to inflame relations between Kiev and Moscow.

Deputies in the Crimean parliament in Simferopol stood and applauded loudly after passing an "Act of Independence" by 118 votes to 28. The decision must be confirmed by a referendum.

Several thousand people standing outside the rambling, modernistic building in the sunshine waved banners and cheered as the decision was announced over loudspeakers.

The act stated: "In view of the threat posed to Crimean statehood...and expressing great alarm about worsening relations between Russia and Ukraine, the parliament of the Crimea declares the creation of a sovereign state, the Republic of Crimea."

Parliamentary leader Nikolai Bagrov told reporters: "The Crimea is a republic and should have its own statehood."

The declaration will infuriate Ukraine, which considers the Black Sea peninsula part of its territory. The referendum is likely to take place on August 2.

Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk has said that any referendum on Crimean independence could lead to bloodshed.’

Events now became bizarre, and readers will have to form their own conclusions as to how an entire regional assembly can totally change its mind on a central issue in the course of one day. Severe outside pressure seems to me to be one possible explanation.

For on the 6th May, we see this despatch:

SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine, May 6, Reuter - The Crimean parliament on Wednesday appeared to reverse the previous day's declaration of independence by changing its constitution to say the peninsula formed part of Ukraine.

"The republic of Crimea is part of the state of Ukraine and determines its own relations with Ukraine on the basis of treaties and agreements," the amendment said.

It was passed by a big majority.

The Crimean parliament had on Tuesday declared the Republic of Crimea a sovereign state. Independence was to be confirmed in a referendum, likely to be held on August 2.

Tuesday's vote was a reaction to a Ukrainian parliamentary resolution giving the Crimea a measure of independence which the local parliament said fell short of its demands.

But Wednesday's apparent reversal of the independence vote may be an attempt to find a face-saving compromise which will give deputies more say in running their own affairs but which will not trigger a complete break with Kiev.’

Perhaps a clue to the explanation can be found in these words of President Kravchuk, on a visit to Washington DC at the time :

‘"But I would have to say that the voting in the parliament of Crimea is not the last instance," he said during a ceremony marking the opening of Ukraine's embassy in the United States.

"We can say one thing for sure that what has been voted in the parliament of Crimea is against the constitution of Ukraine," Kravchuk added.

On May 8th Reuters reported :

‘KIEV, May 8, Reuter - A campaign by the Crimean peninsula to break away from Ukraine could plunge the region into a conflict similar to that in Northern Ireland, a top aide to Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk has said.

Alexander Yemets, Kravchuk's top adviser on legal issues, also said in an interview on Thursday that Ukraine would never give up the peninsula, populated mainly by ethnic Russians but given to Ukraine as a "gift" by Russia in 1954.

Speaking a week before a summit of leaders of the Commonwealth of Independent States, he accused prominent Russian leaders of stirring up confrontation in the run-up to Tuesday's declaration of independence by the Crimean parliament.

"The problem is difficult and complex and could take on a violent character," Yemets told Reuters in his office, once part of the headquarters of the now-banned Communist Party.

"If we cannot solve this through political dialogue, the situation will resemble that of Northern Ireland in terms of the violence involved. That is, partisan-like actions by different groups pursuing different aims, violent confrontation," he said.’

On 13th May, we learned from AFP: ‘The Ukrainian parliament on Wednesday declared unconstitutional a recent declaration of independence by the Crimean peninsula, where the former Soviet Union's huge Black Sea fleet is based.

The parliament called on the local authorities in the peninsula, which was ceded to Ukraine by Russia in 1954, to "return to legality" by rescinding the declaration of independence they issued on May 6.

The Crimean authorities have said they will organise a referendum on independence on August 2.

And on 14th May, the London Times reported : ‘Ukraine's parliament yesterday moved to bury the Crimea's growing Russian separatist movement by issuing a five-point plan over-riding the peninsula's independence vote and threatening direct presidential rule.

In a rare show of strength by the Kiev parliament, deputies voted by an overwhelming margin to declare last week's actions by the Crimea's supreme soviet unconstitutional, and banned the Black Sea peninsula's government from holding an independence referendum this summer

On 30th June, we learned from Reuters; ‘KIEV, June 30, Reuter - Ukraine's parliament on Tuesday granted the Crimean peninsula wide-ranging autonomy, allowing it to determine its own foreign economic relations and social and cultural policies.

The power-sharing arrangements were detailed in amendments to a new law aimed at satisfying the territory's aspirations for self-rule while keeping it under Kiev's jurisdiction.

And on the 9th July 1992, Reuters said: MOSCOW, July 9, Reuter - The Crimean parliament voted on Thursday to suspend plans for a referendum on independence from Ukraine, local journalists in the regional capital Simferopol said.

The decision, approved by 106 of the 137 deputies attending parliament, will help remove a possible source of conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The referendum had originally been scheduled for August 2.’

But it hadn’t really gone away. In summer 1993, BBC monitoring noted :’ A regular congress of the Crimean Electors' Movement [Ukrainian: Rukh Vybortsiv Krymu] was held today [29th May] under the slogan "Away with independence! Give us a referendum!". The movement is made up of adherents of joining the peninsula to Russia. Several resolutions were adopted at the congress, and on the situation in the Black Sea Fleet too. Those present called on the presidents of Ukraine and Russia to hold their meeting on problems of the Black Sea Fleet only in Sevastopol, and to adopt at the meeting an unequivocal decision - on the impossibility of dividing the fleet, and on preserving Sevastopol's status of Russian Federation naval base. In the event that this demand is not fulfilled, says the resolution, the participants of the movement reserve the right, following the sailors's example, to hang Russian flags on their buildings.

‘A decision on setting up a civic committee to safeguard the referendum on Crimea's state status was adopted. The movement intends to organize a warning strike of work collectives on 2nd August in support of this referendum...’

I have assembled this account because I had not seen a proper explanation of the history of the Crimean independence issue. I think it helps to explain the origin of the dispute. I also think it once again raises the curious and ever-fascinating question of title in international affairs.

Who really owns which piece of land? On what is his claim based? Why are some units permitted to declare independence from large countries, and others not? And if there is no consistent legal or moral answer to any of these questions, what lessons should we learn from that?

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

PH wrote: "... 24 and 23 years ago, when 'The Ukraine' was the standard English usage. Dictionaries follow, but do not define, usage".

My reply: I'm not sure dictionaries should be entirely descriptive. If so, then "brought" is the past tense of the verb "to buy", or should be listed as a variant of "bought" in the dictionary. To be overly prescriptive and ignore usage would also be wrong. That's why I argue for a descriptive approach that ***describes the usages of the educated minority***. To do anything else would be to reject the notion of good English entirely. PH, if "the Ukraine" was regarded as correct 24 years ago, and, bearing in mind that I'm 45 and I was alive 24 years ago (and studying Russian at university at the time) and that I'm not dead yet, then how is it suddenly not "the usage"? There are still enough people like me around who prefer "the Ukraine" (the only form found in print until comparatively recently) to argue that the educated élite still use "the Ukraine".

Most of the print journalists covering the Ukraine could not have placed the country on the map a year ago. The chief foreign affairs editor of the Telegraph, who I won't name here, has reported from Donetsk and Lugansk, and so has been on the ground. Yet he has written repeated blog articles on the DT site claiming that Ukrainian is the spoken language of Donetsk -- and not Russian. He backed this up by reference to the Ukrainian census of 2004 (or 2005 or around then), which showed that "ethnic Ukrainians" were in the majority there. Numerous commenters pointed out to him that many ethnic Ukrainians speak Russian as their preferred language. Can you see just how lacking in regional knowledge senior journalists can be? Would I allow the usages of such a person to set a "standard" for me? In truth, he ought to be asking me about the basic facts of the Ukraine -- and indeed whether to say "Ukraine" or "the Ukraine". So, clearly, usages of those who DON'T KNOW are of little authority.

I use the full OED on CD-Rom. Version 4, I think, but I can't find the version number on it. I don't know if the version online is the full version, or even a more updated version. If so, then maybe "in order to follow usage in the media" they have intervened to remove the article in the entry under "Ukrainian".

The trouble with dictionaries "following" usage is that it depends which people they're following. Some people say "to all intensive purposes". It makes sense to follow the educated élite and not ***the people who don't read whole books and who never read anything more substantial than text messages***.

It is incorrect to say "Ukraine", without the article, not because languages can never change - a canard you may be thinking of using - but because change in what is regarded as good usage follows the usage of the best speakers.

Listening to journalists on the TV, it would be a stretch to describe them as "educated". People emerging from universities today generally use quite demotic, or even Americanised, modes of expression. "The government will likely do that" and "it is a big ask" and "it'll impact the economy", etc.

As a conservative, I prefer the usages of the well-read. Such usages do changes over time, but more slowly than those of the average soap opera watcher.

I had a quick look at the OED online. It didn't seem to have 'Ukraine' as a separate item, but 'Ukrainian' was defined as 'of or pertaining to Ukraine' - without the article. The equivalent entry under 'Crimean' does use an article - 'the Crimea'.

Anyway, no doubt Peter Preston, lately of this parish, would have joined me in disagreeing that the OED is authoritative for English. That's the beauty/horror of the language: there are no authoritative sources (although I concede that some are more authoritative than others).

***PH writes. What is the date of this edition of the dictionary? The whole point ( as I have said, to total ignoral by those taking part in this argument) is that in the article I was quoting from wire service stories of 24 and 23 years ago, when 'The Ukraine' was the standard English usage. Dictionaries follow, but do not define, usage.

Up until recently, these were never seen without the article. Have you ever read a book cover to cover printed before 1990? I ask because I feel the text-message generation - people who don't read books - are determining linguistic "standards" nowadays.

What happened is that the government of THE Ukraine, upon independence, announced that it wished to be known as "Ukraine" in English, although the form of the placename in English had nothing to do with them. They may have felt that "Ukraine" sounds more like a country, whereas "the Ukraine" sounds like a region of another country (literally, "the borderland" in Russian). A similar situation applies to the Russian for "in the Ukraine", which is "na Ukrainye". "Na" means "on" literally, and so it become modish after 1991 to say "v Ukrainye", where "v" literally means "in". However, I believe this felt artificial to Russians, and most Russians have gone back to saying "na Ukrainye". Maybe usage in the Ukraine tends towards "v Ukrainye"? Or maybe it depends on the political view of the speaker?

Politically correct attempts to emphasise the independence of the Ukraine by labelling it "Ukraine" are not good English at all. The Oxford English Dictionary is authoritative for English, and the entries under Crimean and Ukrainian show both placenames take the article. I would have thought Peter Hitchens' political views would require him to say "the Ukraine". Why the politically correct dumbing down, Peter?

Yes Mr. Klimenko, there are no definite articles in Russian or Ukrainian but that was not my point.

Any serious scholar in a given subject matter, usually if they use the wrong lingo they expose their ignorance. (Though I don't think our host is ignorant of the Post-Soviet space, just wrong; just like his brother was very knowledgeable about religion but my opinion is his general conclussion was wrong)

I am no expert on British affairs (though I do have a portrait of the Queen in my house -- she is simultaneously the Queen of Canada) but if I was writing articles about British affairs and then misplacing England, Britain, or the United Kingdom, knowledgeable people would pick up on it and take me less seriously. Peter here once even scolded someone for using United Kingdom in a time period nobody ever called it that.

Same thing with the definite article in front of Ukraine -- every English language scholar in every possible course you can take in North American universities (and I am sure others) specializing in that part of the world will instruct not to use the definite article or the red pen will come out.

Kravchuk is a barefaced liar. He, Yeltsin and Shushkevich conspired to split up the USSR and establish Russia, the Ukraine and Belarus as their own separate fiefs. The Yeltsin gang were convinced that Russia would thrive once shorn of the burdens imposed by the other republics. Kravchuk's mob were sure that the Ukraine would be the Sweden of eastern Europe.

Time has shown the wiser.

The Budapest Memorandum was not a legally binding document. In any case, the Ukraine would have obliterated herself years ago had she kept her nuclear weapons. And with the Maidan regime in power and Right Sector terrorists preparing to attack Crimea, both the 1997 Black Sea Fleet Treaty and the Kharkov Pact were a dead letter.

'Three, there is no 'the' in front of Ukraine. Anybody who writes this in English is obviously not familiar with the subject matter.'

Not in Ukrainian. But we aren't writing in Ukrainian, are we?

@Ross

The kind of nationalism espoused by the Russian government is civic and state-based, and to a lesser extent cultural.

Navalny's brand is the 'kill the blackasses' variety. Quite a big difference.

"Russia, belatedly waking up to the danger, has now turned nationalist itself, and that is very much not approved of."

Less than two months ago Peter Hitchens was using the fact that the opposition figure Alexey Navalny's "past associations with Russian nationalism" to delegitimise him.
***PH writes. This is a misleading attempt to claim inconsistency where there is none. I have no great liking for any sort of nationalism anywhere, preferring patriotism as a sentiment. My point about Mr Navalny was that the Western liberals who praise him seemed not to know or care that in Western terms he is well to the right of UKIP. Such people are usually fastidious about such things, but their support for Mr Navalny is driven by an unreasoning hostility towards Mr Putin. I also pointed out Mr Navalny's remarks about 'cockroaches', which seem to me to go way beyond the limits of civilised discourse. Would the Guardian, in any other circumstances, be sympathetic to a person who said such things? Yet media organs which constantly expose UKIP candidates for saying things not one half as bad, treat Mr Navalny with respect.

This is ultimately the same as my point about Western sympathy for Ukrainian nationalism, which has some very ugly features and some very nasty supporters. It is unprincipled, like their sympathy for Mr Navalny, and exposes the emptiness of the anti-Putin faction's claims to be driven by virtue.

First, if one was to read Leonid Kravchuk's accounts, (and many othhers echo similar views) -- Russia placed enormous pressure to keep Ukraine from seperating from the USSR.

Two, all this history of Crimea but no mention of Russia's committments to Ukraine in 1994 and 1997. Or earlier if we count Helsinki.

Three, there is no 'the' in front of Ukraine. Anybody who writes this in English is obviously not familiar with the subject matter.

****PH writes : I would be interested in any details of preidnet Kravchuk's reminsicences, about this and about the suppressed 1992 independence referendum in Crimea. The reports which I 'cut and pasted' (or 'reproduced' , to use a more neutral, less disparaging term) referred to 'the Ukraine' because at the time this was standard practice in the English-speaking world and house style in most newspapers and agencies. . Mr Jaremko is presumably too young to know this. A little learning....

Can anyone define what is the difference between dictatorship and democracy, is there any agenda to which it must not be altered under our supposedly democracy.
Was there ever an agenda for murderers to be executed or not executed, was there any agenda for these type of criminals to pay about 75 thousand pound a year to keep them better than those in poverty. Was there any agenda to give other nations about 20 billion a year for the poor, and pocket liners. Was there any agenda to have an House of Lords that get £300 a day, while pensioners will not get that much and never will. So let us say to all our past and present governments, "Keep Spending."

One of the few pieces of informative, enlightening journalism I have read in the past 10 years. Thank you for putting it together, you put your propaganda-spouting puppet colleagues across the political spectrum to shame.

The question I would like to ask is whether the Crimeans were 'threatened at the point of a gun' to demand independence or allegiance to Russia back in the early 1990s, or is it the case that a desire for autonomy from Kiev has genuinely existed in Simferopol and its surrounding area ever since Ukraine became independent from the Soviet Union??

The simplest explanation is that the people of Crimea, not universally, but by a significant majority, consider themselves to be Russians, having been Russians prior to 1954, having desired independence from Ukraine in 1990/91 and having voted in 2014 to rejoin Russia by a large majority??

I am of the strong opinion that it is strategically imperative for America to break Crimea from Russia in perpetuity, to seize control of the naval facilities in Sevastopol away from Russia and to do the Donbass what they did to Iraq, to Vietnam, to Libya, what they would like to do to Syria and what they would quite fancy doing to Venezuela.

I am also of the strong opinion that I will always support the legitimate right to self-determination of every people on earth, even if it is against my narrow interests, provided that they are not intending to foment aggressive first-strike military conflict against others on the back of that legitimate right to self-determination.

Finally, I am of the considered opinion that my views are considered unacceptable in Washington, as the only self-deteremination which is allowable is that which furthers the interests of the unaccountable US elite.

Whilst I .the BNP .FN and other assorted Nationalist are a regular recipients of the epithets Fascists and Nazis. It appears our Foreign affairs are now openly being conducted with Nazis and Fascists. And those previously seen as Nazis and Fascists are the ones protesting our governments duplicity.
History has this funny knack at laughing in the face of those duplicitous fools. Why am I not surprised Protests R Us are not trashing our capital, as I write, in protest of this great violation of their sacred nihilism.

It was unreported in the west but had a huge impact in Crimea was the pogrom of Korsun on 20/2/2014. 8 busloads of Crimeans who had gone to Kiev to protest against Maidan were stopped on their way home by Right Sector. Many were beaten viciously while a number are said to have been murdered.

Being proud of their handiwork the Nazis posted a good deal of footage on social media. There is a 25 minute video Pogrom of Korsun on YouTube which features examples of this footage as well as interviews with survivors.

What frightens me is the way in which our media are presenting a single, propagandists narrative about events in Ukraine. What does this tell us about our democracy and where will it all end?

Many Ukrainians are secretly glad that crimea is gone,,,the area is mostly populated by ethnic Russians, who are xenophobic to say the least, crimea has been a communist gift which keeps giving....many progressive Ukrainians are ready to say good bye to crimea, they would rather move to the eu....

Just feel bad for the Tatars, Putin will have another jihad on his hands very soon....intolerant Russians doing what they do best, bully, mafia management, all the things Ukrainians don't want anymore

Peter, your analysis is great, but it is THE Ukraine and THE Crimea in good English. I fear English linguistic standards are now being determined by people who couldn't have placed the Crimea or the Ukraine on the map a year ago.

See the Oxford English Dictionary (full version on CD-Rom) under "Crimean": "characteristic of the Crimea". Also under "Ukrainian": "inhabitant of the Ukraine".

"Nationalists are out of fashion now and frowned on by the EU, especially."

Nationalism may be frowned on by the EU, but in Ukraine at least, they seem OK with National-Socialism (Social-Nationalism?).

Just a few days ago, Ukraine's Ambassador to Germany, Andriy Melnyk, admitted on live German television (Günther Jauch's show, if you care search for it on YouTube) that Kiev had Nazi battalions (Azov, Dniepr, etc.) under its command. He excused this on the grounds that they were needed to fight "the Russian army".

Remember this the next time some Europhile goes on a tear about UKIP or Front national.

I seem to recall Britain had a war in Crimea 150 odd years ago. Al we ever got taught was the Charge of the Light brigade. Not if it was called for or an accidental miss reading of orders.
Why were we there. Strategic or minded of others business. But that's the problem world wide. Occasionally a place finds itself of strategic interest. Russia needed a warm water harbour. Britain needed a big rock in the westerly entrance to the Med. America Wanted a Volcanic set of Islands mid pacific. The locals of no consequence. Does history shows these places, got to see different armies fighting on their land.
But whilst we still claim ownership ourselves .It seem we do not share that attitude towards others. So instead of poking our noses in we should lead by example, giving back Gibraltar for a start. Then maybe we'd have a case ,asking others to do the same.
No I do not want Gibraltar lost. But we just cannot ,and should not allow our gang of imbeciles anywhere near these hot spots. This May coming is a small chance at addressing that problem .

You only have to compare the EU's support for the Nazi flag bearing, Ukrainian nationalists with our (and it's) hysterical reaction to a black man being pushed off a packed train by louts, to see their hypocrisy and guilt in this matter.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.